Lobbyist Solutions

[Fife]

To make my sentiment (probably overly) simplistic: I favor weakening the demand for lobbying over weakening the supply of lobbying. Weakening demand implies dismantling the state; weakening supply implies further construction of the state.

Contract (peace) > Compulsion (violence)

[Fife]

Watch the flow of the debate: I immediately went the "business is NOT people" route, with an example, and Fife dismissed that argument by dissing Mitt.

The Mitt thing was gratuitous. I admit I don't like him or his magic underwear.

The point is "business" (in the generic sense) is indistinguishable from "people." A man's right to speak, think, interact voluntarily with others, &c. (1st amendment stuff) as he chooses is meaningless if separated from his property (his commerce, or his "business").

Where we have problems is when "business" comes to mean power over the state, or a partnership with the state. That's when one man pays off a gang to impose his will through aggression and violence. If that's what we are meaning by "business," then I want to stab it with a wooden stake just like the "official" gangsters in D.C.

[SuburbanFarmer]

First, business should not be able to contribute to campaigns. This seems like a no-brainer, the owners of the business can choose to donate anyway they like, out in the open where it belongs.

Second, forbid lobbyists of any kind. How can a normal human being just trying to do their job be expected to remain objective under a barrage of temptation, bullying, and expert cajoling.

Third, retired regulators should be barred from benefiting from the industry they were regulating.

And, forth, most importantly, how can government perform its duty to regulate business if it is in business with them, so no so-called public/private partnerships.

Got my vote.

I'm not sure you'd be able to pull any of that off, in government, but it's certainly what I want to hear.

[Martin Hash]

Watch the flow of the debate: I immediately went the "business is NOT people" route, with an example, and Fife dismissed that argument by dissing Mitt.

The point is "business" (in the generic sense) is indistinguishable from "people." A man's right to speak, think, interact voluntarily with others, &c. (1st amendment stuff) as he chooses is meaningless if separated from his property (his commerce, or his "business").

Business is NOT indistinguishable from people. (You as an attorney should know that.) If business had a vote, to win all I have to do is create more businesses than you.

[Fife]

Watch the flow of the debate: I immediately went the "business is NOT people" route, with an example, and Fife dismissed that argument by dissing Mitt.

The point is "business" (in the generic sense) is indistinguishable from "people." A man's right to speak, think, interact voluntarily with others, &c. (1st amendment stuff) as he chooses is meaningless if separated from his property (his commerce, or his "business").

Business is NOT indistinguishable from people. (You as an attorney should know that.) If business had a vote, to win all I have to do is create more businesses than you.

Wayment, we talking about the franchise now? How could a "business" get a vote?

You know that I'm against corporatism, I'm guessing after all these years. Hell, you know that I'm against corporations, period, as a generic legal construct. I'm also against all forms of intellectual property created by state fiat. If we agree to eliminate state chartered "business," i.e., corporations, LLCs, public corporations, &c., and state-created intellectual property, will that start us down the road of restricting the speech of "business?" It can't speak if it doesn't exist.

That's my initial peace offering on reducing the supply of offensive lobbying speech.

[Martin Hash]

Business' only goal is profit, as it should be. That makes a YUGE difference because profit is somewhere down the list of a person's goals.

[Martin Hash]

<Deleted Post>

Dude, you need to move on. I didn't ask for your criticism.

[Fife]

Business' only goal is profit, as it should be. That makes a YUGE difference because profit is somewhere down the list of a person's goals.

I don't understand; what do you mean by profit? I see profit as the excess of revenue over expenses. IOW, what you have to buy your first biscuit and gravy. If a man has no profit or negative profit, he's going to have to go to some "plan B" to get that first biscuit of the day. I'm not aware of a perpetually sustainable "plan B." If a man has no food to eat, what will he be able to do to provide for the greater good, or art, or anything?

Without profit, we're all just starving in our caves, looking to knock each other in the head.

Now if you are meaning "profit" as some term of art for something ill-gotten, I will probably be on board with you. I just don't know that I know what you mean by that term.

[Martin Hash]

So, you wanting your children to succeed has a profit motive? How about the charity you perform, where's the profit in that? In fact, you're not going to be alive when the consequences of many of your actions come due, why would you ever be conscientious? Bain Capital had no intention of saving Office Depot, but they make a lot of profit saying they were.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's a question of priorities. I notice that Mammon folks place profit above all other motivations in life, and they seem genuinely confused that the rest of us do not. Honestly, that is, has always been, and probably will continue to be for a few years yet the primary stumbling block of the republican party. As long as people like that infest the GOP, the democrats will ALWAYS have an opening to win elections, especially in midterm elections.

Democrats can win by exploiting the misplaced priorities of the GOP elected, especially when those priorities conflict with the GOP electorate.